Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-17Approved March 2, 1982 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council -Chambers = Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,_ California WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey (7:20) Bannister ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY PAONE THE CONSENT'CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF,FEBRUARY 2, 1982 (AS AMENDED) AND THE MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 1982,.'WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick*, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None *Commissioner Kenefick abstained from voting on the minutes -of February 9, 1982,-.-having been absent from that meeting. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: - Commissioner Porter suggested that Agenda Item E-2 be moved to the first item on: the agenda. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT" NO. 79-32 Applicant: First Christian Church A request to revise"a"previously approved site plan to allow place- ment of a 54-foot high illuminated cross on the site. Subject property is located._at"the southwest cornet of Adams Avenue and Main Street. The Commission discussed "whether or not this item should be con- sidered by them as simply'a revision to a site plan or whether it should be taken up"as a -plot plan amendment or a special sign per- mit allowing public input. Commissioner Paone asked that a legal opinion be obtained"on the proper procedure to follow in cases of this sort, clarifying".once and for all whether amending or adding a condition of'apprbval or considering information which was not a part of the original request on a project should be subject to a Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 17, 1982 Page 2 new application and a public hearing. Legal counsel Art Folger noted that the -:City Attorney's position on matters of this nature has been that' -the City cannot amend a project after it has already been heard unlesq"new evidence is presented. The need to have this opinion in a written form was stated, and Mr. Paone suggested that the ordinance isunclear and perhaps should be amended to specifically state the AttorAey"s opinion. Further dis- cussion produced the consensus that them.should be an opportunity for the public to address -the requested sign and the item should be con- tinued to permit staff to determine the necessary action. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY PAONE THE REQUESTED ACTION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79-32 WAS CONTINUED TO PERMIT CLARIFI- CATION ON PROCEDURE AND TO PERMIT STAFF TO BEGIN WORK ON A CODE AMEND- MENT SPECIFICALLY DELINEATING THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE CITY WHEN MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS ARE REQUESTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-88 (Cont. from February 2, 1982) Applicant: Kenneth E. Holmes To permit the relocation of*a garage with 16 foot front yard setback, encroachment into side yard setback of 2.5/3.5 feet, and encroachment of a wing wall into the side yard setback of 5 feet on property loc- ated on the west side of Saybrook approximately 300 feet south of Davenport Lane. Staff explained that the revised site plan which reflects the above information was also reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments after it had been referred to them from the appeal hearing by.the Com- mission on February 2, and the Board's recommendation is still for denial.. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO UPHOLD THE OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS' DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. _BOARD 81-88 WITH THE.FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Kenneth Holmes then requested permission,.,' -to address the Commission to explain that a misunderstanding on his part had resulted in his failure to attend the Board of Zoning Adjustments.meeting with a site plan which"would be more in confo�mancef-with code. He,asked for a further continuance to enable h1m_-to again modify his,"plan. After brief,discussion, the above,.motion.was-withdrawn. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY"PORTER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 81-88 WAS" CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 16, 19821. TO'ALLOW THE -2- 2-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 17r 1982 Page 3 APPLICANT TIME TO -MEET WITH THE BOARD -OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS ON MARCH 3, 1982, AND FOR THE BOARD TO REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION ON A REVISED PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister - ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-15/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-16 (Cont. from 2-2-82) Applicant: Mola Development Corporation To permit a change of zone from R1-O, R1-01, RA-0, RA-01, and C2 to Seabridge Specific Plan on property located on.the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and -Beach Boulevard. Jim Barnes informed the Commission that the concerns raised by the hearing on February 2, 1982 have been responded to by the appli- cant and the specific plan revised to incorporate those concerns. He also reviewed two staff recommendations for change in the speci- fic plan in regard to density and parking ratio; these were dis- cussed by the Commission and by consensus included in the specific plan. Very extensive discussion took place -in regard to the request for a percentage of parking to be compact spaces, and a straw vote -produced the following results: IN FAVOR OF COMPACT SPACES: -Paone, Porter, Mahaffey OPPOSED TO COMPACT SPACES: Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher The Commission then discussed the effect of leaving a provision for compact parking in the specific plan document, and Secretary Palin informed them that a future request for compact car -parking would not require -a special permit because it had been,provided for in the specific plan, but the number and size and location of those spaces would be a subject which could be addressed in the conditional use permit filed for the project. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY PAONE THE SPECIFIC PLAN REFER- ENCE TO COMPACT CAR PARKING WAS RECOMMENDED TO BE RE -WORDED AS - FOLLOWS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: "Any allocation for compact car parking spaces within Area B shall be determined through the conditional use permit,process for any project subject to: this -specific plan when it is -submitted to the Planning Commission for -approval." AYES: . Kenefick;-Paone, Winchell, Porter,'Scliumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister:- ABSTAIN:None Provision for TV -service was discussed and a -change recommended to state that no exterior -television antennas should be permitted, -3- 2-17-82 - P.C. Minutes,.H.B. Planning Commission February 17, 1982 Page 4 but that a common antenna with underground cable service to all dwelling units be provided. This change was recommended by consensus action of the Commission. I - Chairman Winchell, noting that the wording regarding building separa- tion between obliquely aligned buildings is not clear, asked that the wording be changed to specify that any decrease in separation at -one corner of buildings should be compensated by a like increase at'the other end. This change was concurred with by the rest of the Plan- ning Commission. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-16 (SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC -PLAN) WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED ABOVE BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1282, FOR RECOMMENDATION'TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION,, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-15 WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED ABOVE, WITH FINDINGS -OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; FINDINGS: IJ 1. The Specific Plan is in conformance with the City's General Plan. 2. The Specific Plan contains regulations necessary to implement spec- ific policies set forth by the City Council for development of this site.. 3. The Specific Plan contains regulations which effectively mitigate adverse environmental impacts -identified in EIR 81-3. AYES: Kenefick, Paone, NOES:- Schumacher ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 82-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 82-4. Initiated by the City of Huntingtoxf-Beach A precise plan of street alignment which will provide access to 12± acres of land located on the south side'of Talbert Avenue approximately 600 feet west of Beach Boulevard. Savoy Bellavia explained that this alignment differs from an earlier alignment approved for the area in that it will be a public instead of a private street and that it will be designed to also provide -4- 2-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H. B. Planning Commission - February 17, 1982 Page 5 access to an adjacent piece of property owned by the City. It will be a standard 54 foot -street. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was pre- sent to speak in regard to the matter. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY PORTER NEGATIVE DECLARATION 'NO. 82-4 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY PORTER PRECISE PLAN NO. 82-1 WAS APPROVED BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1283, FOR RECOM- MENDATION TO THE.CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister - ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO..82-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-2 Applicant: Gabriel'B. Raphael To change the zoning from R5, Office,Professional District, to C4, Highway Commercial District, on property located on the north side of Warner Avenue approximately 330 feet east of Bolsa Chita, Street. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one was present to speak in regard to -the matter. The Commission reviewed the information in the negative declara- tion and zone change applications. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY PAONE NEGATIVE DECLARATION' NO. 82-2 WAS ADOPTED BY.THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick',Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher_, Mahaffey NOES:. None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None' ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY PAONE ZONE CHANGE NO, 82-1 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION .WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The Land Use Element of the General.Plan designates the sub- ject property'as general commercial; therefore, the requested -5- 2-17-82 - P.C. Minutes,A.B. Planning Commission February 17, 1982 Page 6 C4 zoning is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed hotel and retail uses on the property.will be compat- ible with surrounding land uses because these properties are developed as -commercial uses. AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 Initiated by the City of-Huntington'Beach A proposed amendment to 'the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code establish- ing a new article for Mobile Home Park Conversion Regulations. The ordinance will establish requirements -for notification'of mobile -home park residents -and will set guidelines for approval' of a Tenant Assist- ance Plan prior to the change of use of a mobile home park. Secretary James Palin briefly discussed the conflicting philosophies involved in this matter and sugge-sted'a concept to try to provide some common ground between these-philosophkes;� this concept -would provide a sliding scale allowing a higher buy=off-for mobile home units for a shorter period of time, with decreasing=payments as time increased. He asked that persons who intended to speak to the Commission on the code amendment respond to that concept in their remarks. Florence Webb and Hal Simmons reviewed the history of the ordinance preparation and the,mobile home survey which was taken by City staff. An overview.of the salient features'of the proposed ordinance was presented by Mr. Simmons, including.the following: tenants' first right of refusal to purchase a park,, filing of a notice of intent to convert, provisions ,-for public hearing,'a.tenant assistance plan, and a 180-day relocation period. Owners' responsibilities in the above areas are delineated in the proposed document.- Commissioner Porter questioned what State provisions are in place in this regard, and Art Folger responded that'the State does not pre- empt the field, but just sets forth minimum standards and requirements which may be strengthened by more stringent City regulations. The public hearing was opened. - The following persons spoke to the Commission inr.favor of passage of the subject code amendment: Gordon Scott,.resident of Pacific pack Natalie Kotsch,,Chairman of Mobile Home Advisory Committee'' Bob Yansit, 20701 Beach Boulevard Dean Albright Ed.Chadowski, representing Mobile -Home -Owners Council -6- 2-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 17, 1982 Page 7 Ellen Trent, representing Mobile Home Owners Council Chalner Wise Roy Soules Guy.Kingsbury, Everett Brake, Anthony Zabeck, Ed Zschoche Huntington by the Sea resident Huntington Shores resident mobile home park resident The speakers addressed the following areas: Human costs: Discussed were effects of forcing elderly citizens or long-time Huntington Beach residents to relocate and tho diffi- culty which will be encountered in attempting to try to find similar facilities elsewhere. It was the opinion of the majority of the speakers that there is really nowhere else to move. Compensation: Discussion centered on the method of evaluating the amount an owner would receive from his unit and who would decide this value. One person noted that the value of all im- provements such as patios and carports should be included in appraisal of a coach, and it was unanimous that the value should be the fair market value of a mobile home unit within the park as opposed to its intrinsic value outside a park. It was the contention that the tenants should have a right to share in the appreciation of:a park to which their improvements have con- tributed a portion.. Speakers who responded to the "sliding scale" concept put forward earlier in the meeting expressed the opinion that it.would result in automatic deflation of the value of a mobile home unit and would be an unfair method of handling the problem. Decrease in amount of affordable housing: It was suggested that the change in use of the mobile home parks would result in a further decrease in the amount of affordable housing available in the community. One speaker pointed out the need -to broaden the industrial and.economic base in the City and stated that passage of the proposed ordinance would be a step in accomplish- ing that aim. Reference was made in this regard to the diffi- culty in attracting new business and industry to the area in part because of the lack of dwelling units for potential new workers. Other points touched -on by speakers were the need to make the MH zoning on the existing parks permanent instead of temporary and the need to rezone any parks not at present zoned MH, the need to search :out new land in the*City for new mobile home parks, and various suggested changes in wording and definitions in the draft ordinance. The following persons addressed the Commission in opposition to the passage:of-the proposed amendment: Jim Cosick,:1225 8th Street, Sacramento Al Van Syok, 712 North Garfield, Alhambra Steve Navarro-, owner of Huntington by the Sea -7- 2-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Plannin'3 Commis.5.On February 17, 1982 Page 8 Rusty Watson, .19136-Brookhurst Robert Coulter, representing Association of Mobile -Home Park owners Robert W. Williams, Vice President of Huntington Seacliff Ken -Waggoner, Attorney representing Huntington Seacliff and Huntington Beach Company Mr. Watson, a park resident, opposed the ordinance because he felt there was no need for it when there is a government code already in place which addresses park conversion, and he also indicated that passage of the ordinance would place owners and tenants in an adver- sary position. The other speakers analyzed the practical and constitutional aspects of the proposed ordinance. They challenged the"co-ownership" theory which permits tenants Ito participate'in land values in which they have no interest or equity. The proposed ordinance was des- cribed as extremely severe and unfair, making it prohibitively expensive for any owner to change the use of his park. This in the opinion of the speakers would result in radically higher space rents and/or decreased maintenance of the existing parks. Other comments made in regard to the proposed ordinance were that it is not a zoning ordinance but an exercise in the police powers of the community, that it would clearly necessitate an environmental impact report instead of simply a negative declaration, that it would in- fringe on the very comprehensive State legislation already in place, that it will effectively preclude the construction of any more mobile home spaces in the City and result in capital which might have gone into such development leaving the State, that the length of time' is far too long to be realistic, and.that the,answer'to providing affordable housing in the City would be rezoning and less restriction on the construction of low-cost housing units. Mr. Waggoner added that the ordinance has serious problems.in the areas of preemption by the State, the issue of interference in the contractual rights of property onwers, and the deprivation of property without due process. All unanimously urged that the Commission not pass the subject code amendment. There were no other persons present to address the matter, and the public hearing was closed. Extensive Commission discussion followed regarding the points which had been raised during the public hearing. It was the consensus of the Commission that the staff should be -asked to revise the ordinance to include: 1) an -analysis of MH zonings both on the existing parks and the possibility of new MH areas; -2} a reconsideration of the compensation question, with emphasis on reasonabibness and fairness in the amount of payment; 3) a simplification of the.,procedures con- tained in the ordinance; 4) an analysis of what altdady exists under State law so,that a decisioni.can be made on whether or not the City needs to add provisions and, if so, what provisions should be added; 5)' a definition of the people to whom help should go (e.g.,. elderly, handicapped, low-income), and the type of -help which should be -8- 2-17-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.S. Planning Commission February 17, 1982 Page 9 offered; 6) a definition of what is the "acceptable age or quality" of a mobile home to be relocated; 7) an analysis of whether or not the sale of a park in itself constitutes a change of use which would trigger imposition of the require- ments of the ordinance; and 8) investigation of the possibility that the basic thrust of any action on mobile homes might be to provide more mobile homes in commercial and other areas which currently are not too viable. The Commission also asked staff to provide information on the •_ possibility of using block grant funds to assist in reloca- tion or other programs which might be used, such as non-profit cooperative groups. Copies of ordinances which address this issue in San Diego and Newport Beach will also be submitted. Commissioner Schumacher asked that the information be sent out as soon as it is prepared, to give all Commissioners a better opportunity to become familiar with it prior to the next hearing. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY PAONE CODE AMENDMENT No. 81-18 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 WERE CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR.MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-8 Applicant: Martin Communications, Inc. To permit continued use of a subdivisional directional sign located on the west side of Beach Boulevard approximately 75 feet south of :Damask Drive. Commissioner Kenefick left the meeting at this point (11:15). The public hearing was opened. Jeff -Farr, representing the applicant and --Curtiss Development Company, the present advertiser on the sign, addressed the Commission -to urge approval of the request. He cited Curtiss's need for identification and stated that the sign does not block out any advertising for any adjacent uses, since it is adjacent to a blank wall of the nearby restaurant. The owner of the restaurant adjacent to the sign spoke to ask that the sign be removed, noting that it does block the view of his place of business from south -bound automobiles. He added that until recently it had not been used for the intended purpose (identification of a subdivision) but had contained other types of commercial advertising. -9- 2-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 17, 1982 Page 10 There were no other persons' -to speak for or_against the proposal, and the public -hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter noted that, although the present owner of the sign might not have been aware of the fact�the sign is a code violation and should not be continued. Upon questioning from the Commission, the applicant indicated that Curtiss had a two- year contract for the sign space. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT .,.,NO. 81--8 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The granting of a special sign permit to allow the continued use of a nonconforming sign would constitute the granting of a spec- ial privilege based on non-compliance'with'sign area, size, and locational criteria for -subdivision directional signs. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated -any exceptional or extraord- inary circumstances that -do not apply generally to properties allowing subdivision directional signs: 3. The proposed -use of this sign does obstruct pedestrian and vehic- ular vision to adjacent commercial property and, therefore, is detrimental to -the property located in the vicinity of such sign. 4. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that strict com- pliance with the ordinance code will result in a substantial hardship. - AYES:. Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-01 Applicant: Stephen and Daylane Fraser To permit the construction of a two -car garage with an upstairs one -bedroom detached from existing one -bedroom unit on property located on the north side of 12th Street approximately 200 feet east of Olive Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Noting that no one was present to represent the applicants, Commissioner Schumacher suggested that perhaps the applicants had been -at the meeting during an earlier discussion on the possibility of continuance for some agenda items and had left under the impression that their proposal would be continued. The public hearing was closed. -10- 2-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission ,February 17, 1982 Page 11 ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-01 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 9, 1982, TO PERMIT APPLICANTS TO BE PRESENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 (Cont. from February 2, 1982) Applicant: Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach. A proposed amendment to Article 910 of the Ordinance Code by revising the development standards pertaining to windscreens and patios in the R1 Districts. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY PORTER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 9, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick*,Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-2 Applicant: Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A proposed amendment repealing Article 973 of Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and adding a new Article 973 entitled "Miscellaneous Provisions." ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY PORTER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 9, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick*, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: A communication from Leonard Wright, dated January 11, 1982, was reviewed by the Commission. *This action was -taken earlier in the meeting while Commissioner Kenefick was still in attendance. -11- 2-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 17, 1982 Page 12 . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the City Council meeting of February 16, 1982 for,the Commission's information. STAFF ITEMS: Deputy Attorney Art Folger informed the Commission that the City Council -had requested a legal opinion as to whether the Huntington Beach Company's mobile home park (for which a notice of intent to close had been distributed to all tenants in April rof 1981) would come under the regulations of'any new mobile home ordinance. This legal opinion should be available to.the Commission when the matter comes up again as scheduled. The Commission adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ,7 mes W. Palin, Secretary Grace H. Winchell, Chairman df -12- 2-17-82 - P.C.